Omid Memarian
o.memarian@roozonline.com
Former parliamentarian and faculty member of the Isfahan Technical University, Ahmad Shirzad, spoke to Rooz about the latest US National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) report and its implications.
Rooz (R): What are the positive and negative points raised in the U.S. spy agency's report on Iran's nuclear program?
Ahmad Shirzad (AS): If we examine the report from the American point of view, one positive point is that it reduces the threat of a military strike against Iran. When this report clearly states that Iran is not making a nuclear bomb, American voters are less likely to approve of an attack against Iran. On the other hand, there is a negative point, which is that the report clearly states that pressuring Iran can be effective, and that if we pressure Iran, we can gain concessions.
Therefore, it can be concluded that chances for an imminent war are basically null and much less likely than previously thought. However, political pressure on Iran and especially economic sanctions will continue. The Iranian people may face some difficulties and economic problems.
R: This report confirms that Iran was operating a military nuclear program until 2003. Iranian officials have welcomed the report without picking up on such points. How will implicit recognition of these points be interpreted by the international relations experts?
AS: It is natural for Iran to deny this issue and all of us too are behind this official view because of our national interest. The important point is that [this report] transforms Iran's issue from a pressing and immediate case to a program whose past may have been a bit unclear. Therefore, the issue is very different. Iranian officials are now under pressure try to answer questions related to the past and prove that they had no negative intentions. This is very different from portraying the country as a dangerous one that is seeking immediate access to nuclear weapons. As a peace activist, I really welcome the Iranian officials' willingness to embrace this report, because it shows that Iranian officials do not like to portray their country as a dangerous country that undermines peace, and are happy for things to be normalized again.
R: Responding to the report , Mr. Ahmadinejad said last Tuesday that perhaps Americans should take one or two more steps towards a compromise. Do you think that Iranian officials have interpreted this report as on olive branch from Washington?
AS: This is a kind of political flirtation from the long distance. So long as Mr. Ahmadinejad is not at the center of a grand compromise with Western countries, nothing will bear fruit. I think that Mr. Larijani sacrificed himself and opened the path with his resignation. The problem with Iran is that any development, whether peaceful or not, will not be successful until Mr. Ahmadinejad is at the center of it.
We had a little experience during the arrest of the British sailors. When it began, threats were flying around on both sides and Mr. Ahmadinejad placed himself at the center of the controversy, delivering the harshest rhetoric. When it was decided to solve the issue, once again, Mr. Ahmadinejad was at the center. I think that others should open the way so that Mr. Ahmadinejad can take the full credit, I think that that is a positive sacrifice and people, whether inside government or outside, should be willing to make this sacrifice. Mr. Ahmadinejad can take credit so long as that helps take pressure off Iran. As an Iranian, I am completely willing to make that sacrifice.
